Waiting for it
- Thread starter gordo
- Start date
This a question that I have asked myself. What percent of the production, other than the large commercial printers, really get requests for these standards? When it boils down to it, is it just marketing versus added value? Do they really want the added cost of standards of +/- X% or just consistent quality throughout the run?
prepressdork
Well-known member
You forgot FSC/SFI certification LOL
D
Deleted member 16349
Guest
The reason for all the discussion of standards and similar concepts over the last few decades is not due to an effort to improve the process but is a result of a lack of consistency and predictability of the processes. Going to waterless and digital printing was also related to trying to avoid this same existing problems.
People who have no clue about how to fix the problem for years have stressed the need for standards which has resulted in efforts in the industry to match standards, that do not guarantee consistency or predictability, instead of developing the capability to have consistent and predictable processes.
Even now, Frank Romano gave a rant in the recent Enfocus webinar regarding Myths of Modern Prepress. His comments (4, 5, and 6) about there not being any such thing as colour management, his view on standards and on workflow are a refreshing surprise coming from someone who is well respected in the industry.
I am not particularly respected in the industry but have been saying much the same for many years. The difference from my views and Mr. Romano's is that mine tend to come from a more theoretical view of the problems while his are more related to years of experience. The other difference is that Mr. Romano is ranting about the problem but seems to have little idea of how to fix these problems but on the other hand my understanding is directly related to developing solutions.
Anyhow, it is good that he has made this rant and it is available on the following site.
The myths of modern prepress
gordo
Well-known member
The problem will get fixed when there is more profit in fixing the initial problem than in fixing the consequences of the problem. (Dentistry is a good example of this).
D
Deleted member 16349
Guest
This is probably true. A lot of people in the industry are making a living on attempting to fix the consequences of the problems. The schools, the associations, the consultants and the suppliers have an interest in not fixing lots of problems.
They can honestly say that they are doing the best they can because they have no imagination and no clue of what is needed to really the fix problems.
People in the industry do not really want things fixed. They just want something to get around some problem they might have.
Maybe the profit motive will not motivate some suppliers into action but survival might, although from what I have seen in the last 20 years or so, most suppliers would rather go bankrupt than invest in innovation. Actually some go into bankruptcy due to innovating the wrong thing due to the lack of knowledge.
Personally I don't see that things will get better in a way that would make Mr. Romano happy. It will stay a mess.
Stephen Marsh
Well-known member
Who will wait longer:
(A) printer for a print buyer to request or demand that they print within tolerance to a given industry specification
(B) print buyer to receive specifications, separation profile and or softproofing profile settings from their printer
My view is that print buyers waited and waited and waited for (B) to happen, and it never did. They were told to just “provide CMYK files” with no further info provided on how to so. They were told that the printer could exceed any “mediocre industry specification” and all the print buyer received was inconsistent work, from the same printer or competing printers.
Then print buyers started demanding that printers adhere to method (A), they prefer predicable “mediocrity” over “we can in theory do better, but in practice we have no process control and are inconsistent”.
In addition to printers turning their craft into a commodity based on price, now print buyers are also wishing a commodity product, based on consistent results and price.
Stephen Marsh
(A) printer for a print buyer to request or demand that they print within tolerance to a given industry specification
(B) print buyer to receive specifications, separation profile and or softproofing profile settings from their printer
My view is that print buyers waited and waited and waited for (B) to happen, and it never did. They were told to just “provide CMYK files” with no further info provided on how to so. They were told that the printer could exceed any “mediocre industry specification” and all the print buyer received was inconsistent work, from the same printer or competing printers.
Then print buyers started demanding that printers adhere to method (A), they prefer predicable “mediocrity” over “we can in theory do better, but in practice we have no process control and are inconsistent”.
In addition to printers turning their craft into a commodity based on price, now print buyers are also wishing a commodity product, based on consistent results and price.
Stephen Marsh
A fair enough analysis of where we are.
The hard part is that we are often quantifying unknowns and unknowables.
Yes, we can have viewing booths and everything else that can make a "system"... but if there is a single deviation from the system such as a request of "I'd like it a little hotter in the red"... the concept of "system" goes right out the window.
How many designers would bet their livelihoods on a measurement-based request of "Increase the magenta 0.05 and run it"? No, no, no, most would want to re-check... which implies that the system approximates meeting the desires of the designer.
This is not machine-tool making, where a part fits or does not and where measurement actually has a correlation with suitability for use.
I have seen far too many instances in many shops where "hitting the numbers" produced a substandard product, and a creative and experienced team of pressmen and prepress folk produced a minor miracle by disregarding the exact numbers.
It is VERY apparent that color analysis does not lead to "good color"... there is no linear relationship. (After all, we still know so little about how each person perceives color: but we do know when a nut does not thread onto a bolt.)
I suppose I could summarize it simply: quantification of quality must be in units that mean something intrinsic to the suitability of the end product, not in theoretical units that are of secondary or lower importance. (As a boss of mine used to say: "We sell the picture, not the color bar.") Unfortunately, in the printing trade we are unable to quantify "good face colour"; we can only measure (so it seems) the paper that must be cast into the wastebin.
Last edited:
gordo
Well-known member
The point of a signed off contract proof is to eliminate creativity in the pressroom. If the client wishes to be creative at the press then that attitude should be captured during the sales cycle (it usually is)
Yes because a press is mechanically not a proofer (or a scanner). Something that standards and specifications folks don't seem to understand.
It is quite possible to quantify quality in presswork. System Brunner developed a system to do just that - given the technology of the day. More sophisticated methods have been explored by at least one vendor that I know off...but there doesn't seem to be an ROI for vendors in developing such a solution. No ROI = no solution.
Similar threads
